Explore the vast range of titles available.

Evidence of the health and environmental harms of red meat is growing, yet little is known about which harms may be most impactful to include in meat reduction messages. This study examined which harms consumers are most aware of and which most discourage them from wanting to eat red meat. Within-subjects randomised experiment. Participants responded to questions about their awareness of, and perceived discouragement in response to, eight health and eight environmental harms of red meat presented in random order. Discouragement was assessed on a 1-to-5 Likert-type scale. Online survey. 544 US parents. A minority of participants reported awareness that red meat contributes to health harms (ranging from 8 % awareness for prostate cancer to 28 % for heart disease) or environmental harms (ranging from 13 % for water shortages and deforestation to 22 % for climate change). Among specific harms, heart disease elicited the most discouragement (mean = 2·82 out of 5), followed by early death (mean = 2·79) and plants and animals going extinct (mean = 2·75), though most harms elicited similar discouragement (range of means, 2·60-2·82). In multivariable analyses, participants who were younger, identified as Black, identified as politically liberal, had higher general perceptions that red meat is bad for health and had higher usual red meat consumption reported being more discouraged from wanting to eat red meat in response to health and environmental harms (all P < 0·05). Messages about a variety of health and environmental harms of red meat could inform consumers and motivate reductions in red meat consumption.

The associations of red/processed meat consumption and cancer-related health outcomes have been well discussed. The umbrella review aimed to summarise the associations of red/processed meat consumption and various non-cancer-related outcomes in humans. We systematically searched the systematic reviews and meta-analyses of associations between red/processed meat intake and health outcomes from PubMed, Embase, Web of Science and the Cochrane Library databases. The umbrella review has been registered in PROSPERO (CRD 42021218568). A total of 40 meta-analyses were included. High consumption of red meat, particularly processed meat, was associated with a higher risk of all-cause mortality, CVD and metabolic outcomes. Dose–response analysis revealed that an additional 100 g/d red meat intake was positively associated with a 17 % increased risk of type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM), 15 % increased risk of CHD, 14 % of hypertension and 12 % of stroke. The highest dose–response/50 g increase in processed meat consumption at 95 % confident levels was 1·37, 95 % CI (1·22, 1·55) for T2DM, 1·27, 95 % CI (1·09, 1·49) for CHD, 1·17, 95 % CI (1·02, 1·34) for stroke, 1·15, 95 % CI (1·11, 1·19) for all-cause mortality and 1·08, 95 % CI (1·02, 1·14) for heart failure. In addition, red/processed meat intake was associated with several other health-related outcomes. Red and processed meat consumption seems to be more harmful than beneficial to human health in this umbrella review. It is necessary to take the impacts of red/processed meat consumption on non-cancer-related outcomes into consideration when developing new dietary guidelines, which will be of great public health importance. However, more additional randomised controlled trials are warranted to clarify the causality.

The association between red meat, fish, and processed meat consumption and the risk of developing gastrointestinal (GI) cancers remains inconclusive despite several investigations. Therefore, we conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis of observational studies to update the existing scientific evidence. We searched PubMed, Web of Science, and Scopus databases until May 20, 2023. We analyzed observational studies that examined the associations between red and processed meat and fish consumption and GI cancers. We assessed between-study heterogeneity using the χ2 and τ2 tests, as well as I2 statistics. We explored the likelihood of publication bias using Begg's and Egger's tests and trim-and-fill analysis. We reported the overall effect sizes as odds ratios (ORs) with a 95% confidence interval (CI) using a random-effects model. Of the 21,004 studies identified, 95 studies involving 5,794,219 participants were included in the meta-analysis. The consumption of high levels of red meat, as compared to low levels, was found to significantly increase the risk of developing esophageal, pancreatic, liver, colon, rectal, and colorectal cancers. Similarly, the consumption of high levels of processed meat, as compared to low levels, significantly increased the risk of pancreatic, colon, rectal, and colorectal cancers. In contrast, the consumption of high levels of fish, as compared to low levels, significantly reduced the risk of colon, rectal, and colorectal cancers. This meta-analysis provides updated evidence on the association between red meat, processed meat, and fish consumption and the risk of developing five major types of GI cancers.

PurposeThe association between meat consumption and the risk of pancreatic cancer has not been comprehensively investigated by different types of meat. The current study was conducted to evaluate this association.MethodsPubMed and Web of Science databases were used to search for prospective cohort studies on meat consumption and pancreatic cancer risk through May 2022. A meta-analysis was performed using random-effects models to combine study-specific relative risks (RR). The quality of the included studies was evaluated using the Newcastle–Ottawa quality assessment scale.ResultsTwenty prospective cohort studies including 3,934,909 participants and 11,315 pancreatic cancer cases were identified. The pooled RR of pancreatic cancer for the highest versus lowest white meat intake category was 1.14 (95% CI: 1.03–1.27). There was no significant association between consumption of red meat and processed meat and pancreatic cancer risk in the highest versus lowest analysis. In dose–response analyses, pooled RRs were 1.14 (95% CI: 1.01–1.28) for an increase in red meat consumption of 120 g per day and 1.26 (95% CI: 1.08–1.47) for an increase in white meat consumption of 100 g per day, respectively. Processed meat consumption showed neither a linear nor a non-linear association with pancreatic cancer risk.ConclusionFindings from this meta-analysis suggested that high consumption of red meat and white meat is associated with an increased risk of pancreatic cancer. Future prospective studies are warranted to confirm the association between meat consumption and the risk of pancreatic cancer.

Diabetic nephropathy (DN) is one of the most prevalent and severe complications of diabetes mellitus (DM) and is associated with increased morbidity and mortality. We aimed to investigate the associations between red, processed, and white meat consumption and the odds of developing kidney damage and DN in women. We enrolled 105 eligible women with DN and 105 controls (30–65 years). A validated and reliable food frequency questionnaire (FFQ) was used to evaluate the consumption of red, processed, and white meat. Biochemical variables and anthropometric measurements were assessed for all patients using pre-defined protocols. Binary logistic regression was conducted to examine possible associations. The results of the present study showed that there was a direct significant association between high consumption of red meat and processed meats and odds of microalbuminuria (red meat 2.30, 95% CI 1.25, 4.22; P-value = 0.007, processed meat: OR 2.16, 95% CI 1.18, 3.95; P-value = 0.01), severe albuminuria (red meat OR 3.25, 95% CI 1.38, 7.46; P-value = 0.007, processed meat: OR 2.35, 95% CI 1.01, 5.49; P-value = 0.04), BUN levels (red meat: OR 2.56, 95% CI 1.10, 5.93; P-value = 0.02, processed meat: OR 2.42, 95% CI 1.04, 5.62; P-value = 0.03), and DN (red meat 2.53, 95% CI 1.45, 4.42; P-value = 0.001, processed meat: OR 2.21; 95% CI 1.27, 3.85; P-value = 0.005). In summary, our study suggests that higher consumption of red and processed meat sources may be associated with microalbuminuria, severe albuminuria, higher BUN level, and higher odds of DN.

Background: Non-communicable diseases have become a major threat to public health, with cardiovascular diseases (CVDs) and cancer being the top two causes of death each year. Objective: Our objective is to evaluate the balanced association between the effect of red and processed meat intake on the risk of death and the effect of physical activity on the risk of mortality, where the risk of death includes all causes, CVDs, and cancers. Methods: We searched electronic databases, including PubMed, ISI Web of Science, Embase, and the Cochrane Library, for prospective studies reporting risk estimates for the association between the intake of red and processed meat, walking, and muscle-strengthening activity (MSA) and the risk of mortality from all causes, CVDs, and cancer. We extracted fully adjusted effect estimates from original studies and performed a summary analysis using the fixed and random-effect models. Results: A conventional meta-analysis showed that red meat and processed meat were positively associated with the risk of mortality, and daily steps and MSA were negatively associated with the risk of death. Further analysis of the dose–response relationship showed that a risk reduction (20%) from 39.5 min/week of MSA or 4100 steps/d was equivalent to an increased risk of all-cause mortality from a daily intake of 103.4 g/d of red meat or 50 g/d of processed meat. The risk was further decreased as the number of steps per day increased, but the risk reversed when the MSA exceeded the threshold (39.5 min/week). Conclusions: Adherence to physical activity is an effective way to reduce the risk of mortality due to meat intake. However, the total intake of red meat and processed meat should be controlled, especially the latter. Walking is recommended as the main daily physical activity of choice, while MSAs are preferred when time is limited, but it should be noted that longer MSAs do not provide additional benefits.

Characterizing the potential health effects of exposure to risk factors such as red meat consumption is essential to inform health policy and practice. Previous meta-analyses evaluating the effects of red meat intake have generated mixed findings and do not formally assess evidence strength. Here, we conducted a systematic review and implemented a meta-regression—relaxing conventional log-linearity assumptions and incorporating between-study heterogeneity—to evaluate the relationships between unprocessed red meat consumption and six potential health outcomes. We found weak evidence of association between unprocessed red meat consumption and colorectal cancer, breast cancer, type 2 diabetes and ischemic heart disease. Moreover, we found no evidence of an association between unprocessed red meat and ischemic stroke or hemorrhagic stroke. We also found that while risk for the six outcomes in our analysis combined was minimized at 0 g unprocessed red meat intake per day, the 95% uncertainty interval that incorporated between-study heterogeneity was very wide: from 0–200 g d −1 . While there is some evidence that eating unprocessed red meat is associated with increased risk of disease incidence and mortality, it is weak and insufficient to make stronger or more conclusive recommendations. More rigorous, well-powered research is needed to better understand and quantify the relationship between consumption of unprocessed red meat and chronic disease. Using the burden of proof analytical tool, a meta-analysis found weak or no evidence of associations between unprocessed red meat consumption and increased risk of six cardiometabolic disease and cancer outcomes.

Relatively small lifestyle modifications related to weight reduction, physical activity and diet have been shown to decrease the risk of type 2 diabetes. Connected with diet, low consumption of meat has been suggested as a protective factor of diabetes. The aim of the present study was to examine the association between the consumption of total meat or the specific types of meats and the risk of type 2 diabetes. The Alpha-Tocopherol, Beta-Carotene Cancer Prevention cohort included middle-aged male smokers. Up to 12 years of follow-up, 1098 incident cases of diabetes were diagnosed from 24 845 participants through the nationwide register. Food consumption was assessed by a validated FFQ. In the age- and intervention group-adjusted model, high total meat consumption was a risk factor of type 2 diabetes (relative risk (RR) 1·50, 95 % CI 1·23, 1·82, highest v. lowest quintile). The result was similar after adjustment for environmental factors and foods related to diabetes and meat consumption. The RR of type 2 diabetes was 1·37 for processed meat (95 % CI 1·11, 1·71) in the multivariate model. The results were explained more by intakes of Na than by intakes of SFA, protein, cholesterol, haeme Fe, Mg and nitrate, and were not modified by obesity. No association was found between red meat, poultry and the risk of type 2 diabetes. In conclusion, reduction of the consumption of processed meat may help prevent the global epidemic of type 2 diabetes. It seems like Na of processed meat may explain the association.

Abstract Background We investigated the relationship between intakes of red, white, and processed meats with liver cancer—including hepatocellular carcinoma and intrahepatic cholangiocarcinoma, gallbladder cancer, and other biliary tract cancers. Methods The analytic cohort consisted of 480 347 US adults in the prospective National Institutes of Health–AARP Diet and Health Study who were cancer-free at baseline at ages 50-71 years. With a median follow-up of 19.68 years, we identified 1150 participants with incident liver cancer (219 intrahepatic cholangiocarcinomas and 931 hepatocellular carcinomas), 231 with incident gallbladder cancer, and 472 with other incident biliary tract cancers (272 extrahepatic cholangiocarcinomas). At baseline, a self-administered food frequency questionnaire assessed usual dietary intake. We used multivariable Cox proportional hazards models to estimate the associations of meat type with hepatobiliary cancers. We used substitution models with the “leave-one-out” approach as our primary analysis and addition models as a supplemental analysis. Results Replacing red meat with white meat was inversely associated with liver cancer (hazard ratio [HR]50 g/1000 kcal = 0.62, 95% CI = 0.51 to 0.77), hepatocellular carcinoma (HR50 g/1000 kcal = 0.63, 95% CI = 0.50 to 0.80), and intrahepatic cholangiocarcinoma (HR50 g/1000 kcal = 0.56, 95% CI = 0.35 to 0.90). Because of the symmetry of substitution models, replacing white meat with red meat yielded hazard ratios equal to the reciprocal of these values, indicating increased risk for the same cancer sites. No associations were observed for meat intake and gallbladder or other biliary tract cancers. Conclusions Our study indicates replacing intake of red meat with white meat could lower risk of liver cancer by nearly 40%, whereas replacing white meat with red meat could increase the risk by more than 60%.

Processed meat and red meat have been associated with increased mortality, but studies are inconsistent and few have investigated substitution by other protein sources. The relationship of overall and causes-specific mortality with red meat, processed meat, and other dietary protein sources was investigated in The Netherlands Cohort Study. In 1986, 120,852 men and women aged 55–69 years provided information on dietary and lifestyle habits. Mortality follow-up until 1996 consisted of linkage to statistics Netherlands. Multivariable case-cohort analyses were based on 8823 deaths and 3202 subcohort members with complete data on diet and confounders. Red meat (unprocessed) intake was not associated with overall and cause-specific mortality. Processed meat intake was significantly positively related to overall mortality: HR (95% CI) comparing highest versus lowest quintile, 1.21 (1.02–1.44) with Ptrend = 0.049. Significant associations were observed for cardiovascular [HR Q5 vs. Q1, 1.26 (1.01–1.26)] and respiratory [HR = 1.79 (1.19–2.67)], but not cancer mortality [HR = 1.16 (0.97–1.39)]. Adjustment for nitrite intake attenuated these associations which became nonsignificant: HRs Q5 versus Q1 (95% CI) were: 1.10 (0.77–1.55) for total, 1.09 (0.71–1.67) for cardiovascular, 1.44 (0.68–3.05) for respiratory, and 1.11 (0.78–1.58) for cancer mortality. Nitrite was significantly associated with overall, CVD and respiratory mortality. Poultry intake was significantly inversely related to cancer and overall mortality. While fish intake showed positive associations, nut intake showed inverse associations with all endpoints. Replacing processed meat with a combination of poultry, eggs, fish, pulses, nuts and low-fat dairy was associated with lower risks of overall, cardiovascular and respiratory mortality. Processed meat was related to increased overall, CVD and respiratory mortality, potentially due to nitrite. Substituting processed meat with other protein sources was associated with lower mortality risks.